Syncretism and Gnosticism.  Although Gnosticism traditionally borrowed
from various faiths, mythologies and philosophies, is it possible to
be a modern Gnostic and still be true to its ancient, syncretic
tenets?  Does drawing upon other religions hinder or help the Gnostic
revival?  When do we draw the line between adhering to another dogma
and selling out Gnostic principles?  Our guest reveals the perils and
opportunities of combining ideologies.  He also claims that it's
natural to be both a Catholic and Gnostic; there is actually less of a
divide than ever imagined.  We also take a look at how modern
Gnosticism has not been loyal to the Gnosticism practice in the First
and Second Century.

Astral Guest--Jesse Christopher, cofounder of The Palm Tree Garden and
writer for the new 'The Gnostic Magazine'.

Topics Discussed:

--Jesse's evolution from Catholic, atheist and finally a
Catholic/Gnostic (and how be balances it out)
--Why Gnosticism lends itself to easily borrowing from other faiths
and traditions.
--How Catholicism and Gnosticism sprouted from the same tradition,
albeit with different interpretations.
--The fable that women held high positions in Gnosticism.
--When does taking from other religions compromise Gnosticism?
--Sin and Satan…not in Nag Hammadi Library…think again.
--How faith is almost as important as gnosis itself.
--Mistakes modern Gnostics make by ignoring historical facts.

And much more!  Catholic propaganda or the real steak and potatoes?
We blaspheme, you decide.


As always to access the show:

--Go to my homepage http://www.thegodabovegod.com/
--Scroll down until you see the Stickam screen (the eye with the
bloody tear).
--Click the music icon and voila…'Coffee, Cigarettes & Gnosis #89—
Gnosticism and Syncretism' will appear in its entirety!

Our rebroadcast is `CCG #43-- Gnostic Influence in the Middle Ages'.
Our guest was Richard Smoley, author of 'Forbidden Faith: The Gnostic
Legacy', 'Inner Christianity: A Guide to the Esoteric Tradition',
'Hidden Wisdom: A Guide to the Western Inner Traditions' and editor of
Quest Books and former editor of Gnosis.

Gnosticism, despite its savage suppression, has played an important
role in the development of Western ideas, from the Renaissance to the
esoteric revivals of the 19th and 20th century. We take an efficient
outing of the Gnostic legacy in history.

Topics Discussed:

--How a Gnostic spark was essential in bringing about the Renaissance.
--The influence of the Kabbalah and Hermetical ideals that shaped
Christian and loosened Christian theology into the Enlightenment Period.
--How beans (yes beans) point to the fact that all mystery religions
originated in Egypt.
--We revisit the Troubadours and their revival of Romantic Love that
changed Western Civilization (for better or worse).
--A look into the origins of the Rosicrucians and their Christian gnosis.
--How many enlightenment figures were actually influence by the
Hermetical Ideals as much as rationality (just one is example Des
Cartes, who was a Rosicrucian).
--We comb through the various secret societies like the Freemasons and
how their Hermetical Ideals broke the back of The Church.
--How the discovery of the Pistis Sophia gave birth to the occult
movements of the 19th century including the rise of the Theosophical
Society.
--Elaine Pagels--more important than the Nag Hammadi Library in
resuscitating Gnosticism?

-And much, much more! Richard does not play around with his keen
scholarship.

There are over eighty-five shows for download at our homepage on all
things Gnostic and its brethren in the Esoterica.  We have over forty
of the leading scholars and Gnostic sages of our days including
Stephan Hoeller, Timothy Freke, Philip Gardiner, John Turner, Karen
King, Marvin Meyer, Margaret Starbird, Bart Ehrman, Bierger Pearson,
Acharya S., and Robert Price, just to name a few.

Also, shows can now be purchased on CD at half the price and twice the
quality.  And you can download files in bulk digital audio for an even
better price.  Information is on my homepage
http://www.thegodabovegod.com/.

Donations are always appreciated.  Support the Gnostic Media and the
only show out there dealing with Gnosticism, the Gnostics and Gnosis.
  I make no substantial profit but simply re-invest in equipment,
software, Korean midgets, studio rent and all sort of Demiurgic stuff.
  This is one Gnostic who isn't quitting his day job.

And like I've always said, if you've got holes in your pockets let me
know and I'll send you shows for no cost at all.

Abraxas

Time has passed, passions have cooled, so I thought I might
join in discussion once again.

Are there any questions about my views that members feel I need
to address before I start introducing a new topic here or there?

Regards,


George

PMCV:

What a great idea ! To develop a taxonomy... naturally
this is subject to exactly how gnosticism is defined.

But let's say we get a definition that everyone (or most
everyone) finds adequate.

What I have seen is that an inspirational idea like gnosticism
leap-frogs from one community to another.

Whether a gnostic system is raw or fully matured, there is leader
or community that becomes influenced by just reading about it, and
maybe even puts a new spin on it.

And there you have yet another gnostic group.

It's very much like Protestantism.  Once you had a vigorous
tradition of religion not controlled by the pope, ideas just
lept from one part of the world to another... based on readings
or personal meetings.

If Billy Graham sells 50,000 tapes of his ideas and his preachings,
there are 50,000 possibilities that the person who receives the
tape will be inspired to do something ALMOST LIKE Billy Graham.

If he's on the East coast, and the new community is on the
West coast, who would know there was a connection, especially
if the new community has added an important (or not so important)
element to its theology or practice.

Conclusion?

While it may be difficult to build a FULL taxonomy, it should
be quite possible to build a CHRONOLOGY of gnostic communities!

I would be delighted if we could just tell what the predecessor
is to the one existing Gnostic community we have left: the Mandaens.
What was the immediate ancestor or cousin of the Mandaeans?

Regards,


George

Hey George

>>>What a great idea ! To develop a taxonomy... naturally
this is subject to exactly how gnosticism is defined.

But let's say we get a definition that everyone (or most
everyone) finds adequate.<<<

Thanks, I'm glad you like it. I am still trying to work on the other
taxonomy that Thalprin suggests, as well as the timeline.

As for the definition of Gnosticism (and in this forum we are
talking about Gnosticism with a capital "G", not gnosticism with the
small "g"), we are open to some tweeking and discussion.... but...
the fact that we will attempt to maintain the more
academic/historical definition as the base is frankly not open to
debate.

Think of it another way; if "everyone" (in other forums)
believed "existentialism" was about any beliefs
concerning "existance", but there was one last forum dealing only
with "Existentialism" (the philosophical school)... why should that
Existentialist forum bow to "everybody" and try to redefine itself
to talk about the "existentialism" of common understanding? Doesn't
the Existentialist forum have a right to maintain its study of
Existentialism with a capitol "E"?

Public opinion has a place, but this forum is the final refuge for
those who prefer disambiguation in their study of classical
Gnosticism.

PMCV

I agree.

All definitions of Gnosticism, gnostism work and all do not work. For me it is
like trying to
define the wind. We know what the wind can do but does that define the wind.

Pax!

Sean


--- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pmcvflag <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> Hey George
>
> >>>What a great idea ! To develop a taxonomy... naturally
> this is subject to exactly how gnosticism is defined.
>
> But let's say we get a definition that everyone (or most
> everyone) finds adequate.<<<
>
> Thanks, I'm glad you like it. I am still trying to work on the other
> taxonomy that Thalprin suggests, as well as the timeline.
>
> As for the definition of Gnosticism (and in this forum we are
> talking about Gnosticism with a capital "G", not gnosticism with the
> small "g"), we are open to some tweeking and discussion.... but...
> the fact that we will attempt to maintain the more
> academic/historical definition as the base is frankly not open to
> debate.
>
> Think of it another way; if "everyone" (in other forums)
> believed "existentialism" was about any beliefs
> concerning "existance", but there was one last forum dealing only
> with "Existentialism" (the philosophical school)... why should that
> Existentialist forum bow to "everybody" and try to redefine itself
> to talk about the "existentialism" of common understanding? Doesn't
> the Existentialist forum have a right to maintain its study of
> Existentialism with a capitol "E"?
>
> Public opinion has a place, but this forum is the final refuge for
> those who prefer disambiguation in their study of classical
> Gnosticism.
>
> PMCV
>

Hey George and Ben

George states: >>>I would be delighted if we could just tell what
the predecessor is to the one existing Gnostic community we have
left: the Mandaens. What was the immediate ancestor or cousin of the
Mandaeans?<<<

Ben answeres: >>>dositheans , simon, ..with some islam, yes?<<<

Although the question of whether Mandaeans are technically "Gnostic"
is in debate, they certainly have some attributes in common
(especially mythological ones) and they are of interest to those who
study classical Gnosticism. I have not personally taken a side in
that debate, but I do see why the pros and cons are important.

As far as Dositheus and his movement (if it existed), we have so
little genuine evidence of who they may have been and obviously some
of what we hear is wrong. We have mention of him being the origin of
the Saduccees, and mention of him being a follower of John the
Baptist. There is no way to reconcile tidbits like this….. both
can't be true at the same time. If we don't know who they were, we
can't seriously speculate as to how they could have influenced any
particular group.

Simon? I have to assume that is Simon Magus, not Simon Peter or some
other Simon. Some scholars believe the Mandaeans actually predate
this era, but it is hard to say (I have some doubts). However, what
we have about Simon's movement is that it was heavily Hellenistic...
which the Mandaeans are not. It seems an unlikely origin.

Islam? Obviously not an "immediate ancestor" (as per George's
question) since the Mandaeans predate Islam. A cousin to Islam?
Hmmmm... that may depend on how we make the analogy and how far
removed (1st cousin, 6th cousin?). To this day, Mandaean belief
states that Islam is "unclean". The literature also talks about
Mohammed as the son of the demon "Bizbat" and it is forbidden to
accept food or water from Moslems. It is true, however, that there
appears to have been a move to appeal to Islamic leaders so as to be
accepted as "people of the book", but that need not imply
theological influence from Islam.

Dr Rudolph points out a number of Ugaritic/Hebrew elements, as well
as Persian elements. Lupieri mentions these also, as well as some
interesting connections/disagreements with Manichaeism that could
imply similar origins or the kind of interaction and rejection that
could help shape both movements. Take, for instance, the opposing
view between Mani and the Mandaeans about the "living water". It is
as if they are both dealing with an identical idea in different
ways. So much so that it almost looks like two diverging views
within a single cultural venue.

PMCV

Br. Assisi:

What are my views?  Well, that is a wide open question, yes?

I would say that my principle view is that the various ancient
Christian and/or Jewish groups that we group together as gnostics
are a SUB-set of all Gnostic schools.

While elements such as "Aeons" are shared amongst these ancient
groups, they are not the defining element for gnosticism.

For me, the defining element is that by coming to know the
great source of all life and mind, one no longer needs
the shell of mortal body - - whether this is discovered while still
in a mortal body, or as some sort of spirit after leaving
the body.

Regards,

George

--- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "Br Benjamin Assisi"
<brbenjaminassisi@...> wrote:
>
> what are your views?
>
> On Sun, Mar 16, 2008 at 5:35 PM, George <historynow2002@...> wrote:
>
> > Time has passed, passions have cooled, so I thought I might
> > join in discussion once again.
> >
> > Are there any questions about my views that members feel I need
> > to address before I start introducing a new topic here or there?
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> >
> > George
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Better than one thousand verses
> Where no profit wings the word,
> Is one solitary stanza
> Bringing peace of mind when heard.
>

George

>>>What are my views? Well, that is a wide open question, yes?<<<

Not so wide, since the focus of this forum is quite specific. In
that context the real question would have to be.... what are your
views as they pertain to the focus of this forum? ;)

>>>I would say that my principle view is that the various ancient
Christian and/or Jewish groups that we group together as gnostics
are a SUB-set of all Gnostic schools.<<<

For the sake of this forum we use the disambiguation more generally
accepted in the academic community. This is simply to refine a
shared lingo for the sake of conversation. I believe we are all
aware of the old maxim that a good teacher knows how to speak in the
language of the community being spoken to, so I am sure you are
making every attempt to genuinely learn our vocabulary. In this
forum, the capitol "G" Gnosticism refers specifically to the
category of traditional groups defined in the field of Nag Hammadi
studies. I state this because I was unsure whether the fact that you
switched the common noun and the proper noun in your sentence above
was intentional or just a typo.

As I stated previously, we can adjust terms slightly here and there
for the sake of conversation but the base method needs to remain the
same. After all, this is one of the last forums on the entire net
that keeps this focus. Disregarding our focus in conversation here
trolling as Br Joseph states in one of Ben's forums.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AGCA_gnostics/message/3587

Like the Mandaeans, we are an endangered group. I'm sure you would
rather foster our focus rather than attempt to destroy our identity.

PMCV

Ben

>>>isnt that heresy in this group? lol<<<

Do you support the focus of this forum within the context of this
forum?

PMCV

Ben

>>>how on earth do you see the golden dawn related to the focus of
this group?<<<

I don't.

More specifically (and we do like to be specific here), if you were
literally asking how the focus of this forum could be "related" to the
Golden Dawn, then I guess one could argue that they are both esoteric
systems. On the other hand, if you were asking whether extended
conversation about the Golden Dawn is welcome here.... no, it isn't.
Not unless it is done explicitely to compare/contrast it to
traditional Gnostic ideas.

Let me be the first to point out that my own path is also not
technically Gnostic (in the historic sense of the word), and I don't
talk about it here. If I, one of the mods, am not allowed to blather
on about my own path here.... don't you think that rule applies to
others as well?

PMCV

Ben

>>>yes that rule seems rather silly like going to a grocer, buying a
pound of apples and refusing to eat them but its your group..<<<

Just because we don't jump to the floor and eat our apples right
there in the produce section does not mean we don't know what an
apple can be. You seem to imply that a scientist who is looking at
the botanical nature of an apple is somehow unable to enjoy the
flavor. Be careful about the assumptions you make.

>>>if you wish it to be divorced that is your choice<<<

Yes, thank you, it is our choice. Not only that, even if you don't
understand it there could be a good reason for it. The only thing
you have to figure out is whether you can support it or not.

>>>I think the focus of the forum is largely one sided, dry and
imbalanced BUT I wouldnt be here if I didnt see any value in it<<<

Good, then foster that value rather than undermining it.

PMCV

I have no trouble with Dositheus originating out of the
Sadducees.  I think Josephus was of a Sadducee family
as well.

This should help in harmonizing a Sadducee origin AND of
later being a follower of John the Baptist.

Regards,

George

Perhaps I had forgotten, or perhaps I never realized,
that the focus on the group was on the ancient groups.

Chronologically speaking, where do we draw the line into
a more modern period?

Regards,

George

Brother Benjamin:

Indeed, I had worked under the assumption that we were looking
for what was the central CORE of these various groups, rather
than an historical view of who, and what, and where.

I presume I was in error?

Regards,

George

Brother George and Brother Ben,

Since the focus of this forum is the decision of its moderators, I feel inclined to briefly interject my thoughts here.

You both have been members here for a while, so I find this conversation rather puzzling.  Not only do new members receive a letter specifically discussing our focus, but we also provide a statement on our homepage that you might want to review, which serves to further remind members and readers of our focus.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gnosticism2/

That said, regarding your query, George:

Indeed, I had worked under the assumption that we were looking
for what was the central CORE of these various groups, rather
than an historical view of who, and what, and where.

I presume I was in error?

And Ben's reply:

in this group yes,

Ben, I disagree.  I do not view any of these subjects George lists as mutually exclusive, as long as members remember that we discuss such matters and any modern day comparisons and interests in direct relation to the context of these historical groups of the Late Antiquities.  We offer a focus with the understanding that this provides but one important aspect and perspective within the huge subject of spirituality.

We have had umpteen discussions and complaints about focus in this group.  I imagine I am not the only one who is tired of these recurring conversations. 

Therefore, I suggest that if you are interested in a subject appropriate to our group, please feel free to start a thread and we moderators will step in to guide if the subject gets too far off base.

If anyone has any problems with our focus, then no one is twisting their arm to enter conversation.  It's that simple.

Thank you.

Cari

--- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "Br Benjamin Assisi" <brbenjaminassisi@...> wrote:
>
> in this group yes,
>
> this group is very much just a study/history group...
>
> interesting I guess...but flawed, a bit like a muslim studying catholicism
>
> useful to a point.
>
> Arguing at the AGCA??? We are discussing a central core, well I am trying to
> attempt one, Personally It think there are few "universals" in Gnosticism
> unknowable god, illusion, no dogma etc. I dont find any problem in seeing
> that out side "Gnosticism" either... But I realize in this group and others,
> its mostly an exercise in separation, putting that substance in a centrifuge
> and seeing what you get. So I am here to lurk mostly...
>
> On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 3:02 PM, George historynow2002@... wrote:
>
> > Brother Benjamin:
> >
> > Indeed, I had worked under the assumption that we were looking
> > for what was the central CORE of these various groups, rather
> > than an historical view of who, and what, and where.
> >
> > I presume I was in error?
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > George
> >
> >
>
> --
> Better than one thousand verses
> Where no profit wings the word,
> Is one solitary stanza
> Bringing peace of mind when heard.
>

>>>Therefore, I suggest that if you are interested in a subject
appropriate to our group, please feel free to start a thread and we
moderators will step in to guide if the subject gets too far off
base.<<<

It seems that Lady Cari has pointed to the obvious next step, so I
will leave it at that and move from this conversation to the two that
do relate to our focus. Thanks for keeping us on track, Lady Cari.

PMCV

--- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, lady_caritas <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> […]
>
> We have had umpteen discussions and complaints about focus in this
> group. I imagine I am not the only one who is tired of these recurring
> conversations.
>
>
> Cari
>

Only umpteen?  Geez!  Strange how it has seemed more like a gazillion, innit.

Gerry

Hey George

>>>Chronologically speaking, where do we draw the line into
a more modern period?<<<

If I recall the Messina definition simply states "the Late
Antiquities" as an attribute of the "Gnosticism" category (up to about
500 C.E. was the common date). However, since that time it seems most
scholars have dealt with the issue more on the front of specific
belief systems. This is probably more reasonable since if we found a
text by a Sethian sect still existing in the Medieval era we would
have to include it.

The more important attributes that scholars generally look at as
definitive include cosmology/cosmogeny, soteriology, and a specific
cultural origin (Hellenistic/"Biblical" syncratism).

PMCV

George

>>>I think Josephus was of a Sadducee family
as well.<<<

I have heard some recent speculation about that possibility but
Josephus himself speaks of the Sadducees in negative terms and
doesn't seem to include himself amongst their number.

Anyway, more important to our subject....

>>>I have no trouble with Dositheus originating out of the
Sadducees.<<<

You don't quote me, but since your post relates to my recent post on
the same subject I am guessing you may be answering my response to
Ben.

The source I was pointing to (pseudo-Tertullian) does not state that
Dositheus originated out of the Sadducees, but that they originated
out of him. In other words, he created the Sadducees. I find this
very unlikely, but if it were true he would be long dead by the time
of John. Your idea that he instead came from the Sadducees is
obviously far more possible.

To some extent it simply boils down to which accounts seem more
reliable. Several heresiological sources state that he was a
Samaritan, and the Dosithean sect is referred to as a form of
Samaritanism in both Jewish and Arabic accounts. In these
descriptions of the Dositheans they do not appear to be in any way
related to the Simonians the way some heresiologists relate, nor do
they look to be very Gnostic.

Outside of that, I'm not really aware of any evidence linking the
Dositheans and the Mandaeans. Perhaps Ben had a specific source in
mind when he presented the possible connection? If so, maybe he can
shed some light on the subject.

PMCV

Hey Thalprin (and anyone else), I am trying to work on this chart.
Any other specific groups you would like to see included?

Also, I have the timeline pretty well worked out but I am still
having a hard time finding a program that will give me the graphic
tools I need (or maybe my skill with the programs I have is what is
lacking). Anyone want to help?

PMCV

--- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "thalprin" <thalprin@...> wrote:
>
> PMCV, I'll tell you what I've been thinking or I am kicking
around,
> I'm thinking that it might be interesting perhaps to see/consider
> making two graphs; one to strickly encompass as you say the family
> tree, and another for something akin to depicting its cousins a/o
> relatives.
>
> I think that there are perhaps several groups, communities, a/o
> affiliations that are or have been greatly influenced by, partly
> adopted by (so on) Gnosticism - for example, Hermeticism might be
> most akin to a cousin a/o that which heh married-in in a
> philosophical sense.
>
> Dunno, still thinking it through.  Your thoughts?
>
> Also as you can see from those links that I've sent, there are a
> great many ways to construct a timeline - if it interests you to
do
> so, I thought you might enjoy first seeing a few good examples.
>
>
> Thalprin
>

PMCV, I'd like to say that I think this is quite an admirable project
you're working on.  I also understand the desire to be as
historically accurate and as comprehensive as is or can be possible,
and yes I suspect that that's no small feat.  I thought perhaps at
the moment we might like to peruse/review, so I'm sending a few links
to subjects/sites and orgs which might help or begin to help us to
know/assure that we're being thorough.

Regarding the timeline, I think I'd like to offer my assistance to
illustrate the timeline in Photoshop - if you send me your list and
tell me what, specifically, you have in mind.  It's not a problem, I
think I'd enjoy to help.

Now I'll have a look back at the list and see what we've gathered
thus far, and give some thought to what I might like to suggest we
add (if anything).

Thalprin


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyril_of_Alexandria

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestorius

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shenouda_the_Archimandrite

http://www.stshenouda.com/stshenda/shenvita.htm
(Check out that 3rd category,)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theopaschite_controversy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coptic_Christianity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthodox_Church_of_Jerusalem

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oriental_Orthodox_Churches


Some Codex:
(I saw a Codex exhibit just awhile back - I was so impressed, these
are really such exceptional works,)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Alexandrinus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Amiatinus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Bezae

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Calixtinus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Ephraemi_Rescriptus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Manesse

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Sinaiticus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Vaticanus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleppo_Codex

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leningrad_Codex

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novgorod_Codex

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rossano_Gospels

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinope_Gospels

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna_Genesis



http://www.vetuslatina.org/

http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/sbook2.html#conc2

http://www.bl.uk/onlinegallery/sacredtexts/index.html



--- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pmcvflag <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> Hey Thalprin (and anyone else), I am trying to work on this chart.
> Any other specific groups you would like to see included?
>
> Also, I have the timeline pretty well worked out but I am still
> having a hard time finding a program that will give me the graphic
> tools I need (or maybe my skill with the programs I have is what is
> lacking). Anyone want to help?
>
> PMCV
>
> --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "thalprin" <thalprin@> wrote:
> >
> > PMCV, I'll tell you what I've been thinking or I am kicking
> around,
> > I'm thinking that it might be interesting perhaps to see/consider
> > making two graphs; one to strickly encompass as you say the
family
> > tree, and another for something akin to depicting its cousins a/o
> > relatives.
> >
> > I think that there are perhaps several groups, communities, a/o
> > affiliations that are or have been greatly influenced by, partly
> > adopted by (so on) Gnosticism - for example, Hermeticism might be
> > most akin to a cousin a/o that which heh married-in in a
> > philosophical sense.
> >
> > Dunno, still thinking it through.  Your thoughts?
> >
> > Also as you can see from those links that I've sent, there are a
> > great many ways to construct a timeline - if it interests you to
> do
> > so, I thought you might enjoy first seeing a few good examples.
> >
> >
> > Thalprin
> >
>

--- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "thalprin" <thalprin@...> wrote:
>
> PMCV, I'd like to say that I think this is quite an admirable
project
> you're working on.  I also understand the desire to be as
> historically accurate and as comprehensive as is or can be
possible,
> and yes I suspect that that's no small feat.  I thought perhaps at
> the moment we might like to peruse/review, so I'm sending a few
links
> to subjects/sites and orgs which might help or begin to help us to
> know/assure that we're being thorough.
>
> Regarding the timeline, I think I'd like to offer my assistance to
> illustrate the timeline in Photoshop - if you send me your list and
> tell me what, specifically, you have in mind.  It's not a problem,
I
> think I'd enjoy to help.
>
> Now I'll have a look back at the list and see what we've gathered
> thus far, and give some thought to what I might like to suggest we
> add (if anything).
>
> Thalprin
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyril_of_Alexandria
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestorius
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shenouda_the_Archimandrite
>
> http://www.stshenouda.com/stshenda/shenvita.htm
> (Check out that 3rd category,)
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theopaschite_controversy
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coptic_Christianity
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthodox_Church_of_Jerusalem
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oriental_Orthodox_Churches
>
>
> Some Codex:
> (I saw a Codex exhibit just awhile back - I was so impressed, these
> are really such exceptional works,)
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Alexandrinus
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Amiatinus
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Bezae
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Calixtinus
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Ephraemi_Rescriptus
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Manesse
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Sinaiticus
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Vaticanus
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleppo_Codex
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leningrad_Codex
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novgorod_Codex
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rossano_Gospels
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinope_Gospels
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna_Genesis
>


Just a little note to add; it's amazing how some of these Codex we
have we have a/o survived because of the Cotton Library:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cotton_library


>
>
> http://www.vetuslatina.org/
>
> http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/
>
> http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/sbook2.html#conc2
>
> http://www.bl.uk/onlinegallery/sacredtexts/index.html
>
>
>
> --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pmcvflag <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > Hey Thalprin (and anyone else), I am trying to work on this
chart.
> > Any other specific groups you would like to see included?
> >
> > Also, I have the timeline pretty well worked out but I am still
> > having a hard time finding a program that will give me the
graphic
> > tools I need (or maybe my skill with the programs I have is what
is
> > lacking). Anyone want to help?
> >
> > PMCV
> >
> > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "thalprin" <thalprin@> wrote:
> > >
> > > PMCV, I'll tell you what I've been thinking or I am kicking
> > around,
> > > I'm thinking that it might be interesting perhaps to
see/consider
> > > making two graphs; one to strickly encompass as you say the
> family
> > > tree, and another for something akin to depicting its cousins
a/o
> > > relatives.
> > >
> > > I think that there are perhaps several groups, communities, a/o
> > > affiliations that are or have been greatly influenced by,
partly
> > > adopted by (so on) Gnosticism - for example, Hermeticism might
be
> > > most akin to a cousin a/o that which heh married-in in a
> > > philosophical sense.
> > >
> > > Dunno, still thinking it through.  Your thoughts?
> > >
> > > Also as you can see from those links that I've sent, there are
a
> > > great many ways to construct a timeline - if it interests you
to
> > do
> > > so, I thought you might enjoy first seeing a few good
examples.
> > >
> > >
> > > Thalprin
> > >
> >
>

"a bit like a muslim studying catholicism"

No, more like a modern gnostic studying his (or her) roots in
historical Gnosticism. Many things are useful to a point--and the
point is often knowing that point.  The flaw may be in your
expectations and not in the purpose of this list.

Mark

--- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "Br Benjamin Assisi"
<brbenjaminassisi@...> wrote:
>
> in this group yes,
>
> this group is very much just a study/history group...
>
> interesting I guess...but flawed, a bit like a muslim studying
catholicism
>
> useful to a point.
>
> Arguing at the AGCA??? We are discussing a central core, well I am
trying to
> attempt one, Personally It think there are few "universals" in
Gnosticism
> unknowable god, illusion, no dogma etc.  I dont find any problem in
seeing
> that out side "Gnosticism" either... But I realize in this group
and others,
> its mostly an exercise in separation, putting that substance in a
centrifuge
> and seeing what you get.  So I am here to lurk mostly...
>
> On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 3:02 PM, George <historynow2002@...> wrote:
>
> > Brother Benjamin:
> >
> > Indeed, I had worked under the assumption that we were looking
> > for what was the central CORE of these various groups, rather
> > than an historical view of who, and what, and where.
> >
> > I presume I was in error?
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > George
> >
> >
>
> --
> Better than one thousand verses
> Where no profit wings the word,
> Is one solitary stanza
> Bringing peace of mind when heard.
>